[[being updated (also consulting the 4th German edition) and adapted by RAK
for use in 2004 America;
Greek needs to be inserted, using side by side format? see end of the TOC file
for editing details]]

CHAPTER VII
THE TIDINGS OF THE NEW PEOPLE AND OF THE THIRD RACE:
THE HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRISTENDOM

I

THE gospel was preached simultaneously as the consummation of Judaism, as a
new religion, and as the restatement and final expression of man's original
religion. Nor was this triple aspect preached merely by some individual missionary
of dialectic gifts ; it was a conception which emerged more or less distinctly
in all missionary preaching of any scope. Convinced that Jesus, the teacher
and the prophet, was also the Messiah who was to return ere long to finish off
his work, people passed from the consciousness of being his disciples into that
of being his people, the people of God: t1u Zc ywoc e,CXE,cTov, $aalXeiou iCp
TEU/La, ewos dytomi, Xao ~ d c repsro~siaow (1 Pet. ii. 9: "Ye are a chosen
race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession ") ; and
in so far as they felt themselves to be a people, Christians knew they were
the true Israel, at once the new people and the old.

This conviction that they were a people -- i.e., the transference of all the
prerogatives and claims of the Jewish people to the new community as a new creation
which exhibited and realized whatever was old and original in religion -- this
at once furnished adherents of the new faith with a political and historical
selfconsciousness. Nothing more comprehensive or complete or impressive than
this consciousness can be conceived. Could there be airy higher or more comprehensive
conception than that of the complex of momenta afforded by the Christians' [[241]]
estimate of themselves as "the true Israel," "the new people,"
"the original people," and " the people of the future,"
i.e., of eternity ? This estimate of themselves rendered Christians impregnable
against all attacks and movements of polemical criticism, while it further enabled
them to advance in every direction for a war of conquest. Was the cry raised,
"You are renegade Jews "-the answer came, "'W'e are the community
of the Messiah, and therefore the true Israelites." If people said, You
are simply Jews," the reply was, "We are a new creatiomi and a new
people." If, again, they were taxed with their recent origin and told that
they were but of yesterday, they retorted, "We only seem to be the younger
People ; from the beginning we have been latent ; we have always existed, previous
to any other people ; we are the original people of God." If they were
told, " You do not deserve to live," the answer ran, "We would
die to live, for we are citizens of the world to come, and sure that we shall
rise again."

There were one or two other quite definite convictions of a general nature
specially taken over by the early Christians at the very outset from the stores
accumulated by a survey of history made from the Jewish standpoint. Applied
to their own purposes, these were as follows : -- (1) Our people is older than
the world ; (2) the world was created for our sakes ; 1 (3) the world is carried
on for our sakes; we retard the judgment of the world ; (4) everything in the
world is subject to us aitd must serve us ; (5) everything in the world, the
beginning and course and end of all history, is revealed to us and lies transparent
to our eyes ; (6) we shall take part in the judgment of the world and ourselves
enjoy eternal bliss. In various early Christian documents, dating from before
the middle of the second century, these convictions find expression, in homilies,
apocalypses, epistles, and apologies,2 and nowhere else did

\1/ By means of these two convictions, Christians made out their case for a
position superior to the world, and established a connection between creation
and history.

\2/ Cp. the epistles of Paul, the apocalypse of John, the " Shepherd"
of Ilermas, (Vzs., 1. 4. m), the second epistle of Clement (xiv.), and the Apokgies
of Aristides and Justin (II, vii:). Similar statements occur earlier in the
Jewish apocalypses.

[[242]] Celsus vent his fierce disdain of Christians and their shameless, absurd
pretensions with such keenness as at this point.'

But for Christians who knew they were the old and the new People, it was not
enough to set this selfconsciousness over against the Jews alone, or to contend
with theus for the possession of the promises and of the sacred book ; 2 settled
on the soil of the Greek and Roman empires, they had to define

\3/ Ile is quite aware that these pretensions are common to Jews and Christians,
that the latter took them over from the former, and that botls parties contended
for the right to their possession. M€ra 1 avra., observes Origen (c. eels.,
IV. xxiii. ), ruviiOws ~aurQ yE?..row rb 'Iou~aiwv gal Xpioriai'iv Twos rdvTas
,rapa~E'$A,p v~~rrpi~wv clpsa~Q ~vpILn w F's IcaAi.c srposX0ouTty ~aTpdxo1s
n€pl TdAts lruve&pEuoulrw 31 lTICs?.flLV dv $opl3dpou 7wl~ i~~X~~id~ouo
Iral irpbs is X Xous ~La/)Fpo/Lwots, Tfv€s abrwp El'w aiaprwAdr€poi,
Iral ~bdosouow ITL lndyra i iv d O~os irpo~nxo( cal srpolcarcsyyEAAEI, ,csl
TI'S' ,rdpTa ,cdcr/4ov SC5l Tlv ol'p(vios' ~opav
roX~ir,bw Sal TiJv Torra~rflv y~v irapt~iv Lv 5dvots ,ro?,iTei€TaL Sat
irpbs ~12Ces pdvsus fr~s~puic€u€ra~ Iral,~,irw ov IaAEfir€ itsl
f is v, b',rs,s &€l ,ruv~opw aui p. itsl iv ~c, avairxdrp.ar( yr iauroii
,rapa,rX e1ous iµ?s lroLE inch~ t, ado,couuw b'i-t 1 Oeds iortv, el-ra
err' Jit€wov ijiets Vii' abrsi y€yovdres 7rdPIp ($/sotoi T~pp OeQ,
sat ijpZv ir&vrs S~o~i$As'rat, y~ ical bIwp iral idp Iral ~JTpa, gal wESa
srdvra, Sal iu' iiouArdrw raicra,. Aryouol ~i TI nap' aus4i of cTsc Af,crs,
~ srZs sjAas'j, un PUP, rnrTwES [iv] isIv e2oi oiiow, a(erai Orbs fj sri rI
ri rb5' vide, wa ,eaTa4AE~t) robs ii~hcot,s ,cal of ?,oiirol wv al'JTp Cww aicv,ov
fx i '. Kal E'7rL~E'pet 7€ ,io',v 'Sri ~avra [mAXovj ] avucrb oswX1,cwv
scat $aTpdXw 'los~afw gal xpnrriwww rpbs XAXovg &Laq epoµivwv ("
In the next place, laughing as usual at the race of Jews and Christians, he
likens then all to a flight of hats, or a swarm of ants crawling out of their
nest, or frogs its council on a marsh, or worms in synod ott the corner of a
dunghill, quarrelling as to which of them is the greater simper, and declaring
that 'God discloses and announces all things to us beforehand ; God deserts
the whole world and the heavenly region and disregards this great earth in order
to domicile himself among us alone ; to us alone he makes his proclamations,
ceasing not to send and seek that we may company with him for ever.' And in
his representation of us, he likens us to worms that declare 'there is a God,
and next to him are we whom he has made in all points like unto himself, and
to whom all things are subject -- land and water, air and stars ; all things are
for our sakes, and are appointed to serve us.' As he puts it, the worms, i.e.,
we Christians, declare also that 'since certain of our number commit sin, God
will come or send his son to burn up the wicked and to let the rest of us have
life eternal with himself.' To all of which he subjoins the remark that such
discussions would be more tolerable among worms and frogs than among Jews and
Christians ").

\4/ This controversy occupies the history of the first generation, and stretches
even further down. Although the broad lines of the position taken up by Christians
on this field were clearly marked out, this did not exclude the possibility
of various attitudes being assumed, as may be seen from my study in the third
section of the first volume of the 7exte a. Unlersuchun en (1883), upon "the
anti.Jewish polemic of the early church."

[[243]] their position with regard to this realm and its "people."
The apostle Paul had already done so, and iii this lie was followed by others.
In classifying mankind Paul does speak in one passage of "Greeks and barbarians"
alongside of Jews (Rom, i. 14), and in another of "barbarians and Scythians"
alongside of Greeks (Col. iii. 11); but, like a born Jew and a Pharisee, he
usually bisects humanity into circumcised and uncircumcised -- the latter being
described, for the sake of brevity, as " Greeks."' Beside or over
against these two " peoples " he places the church of God as a new
creation (cp., e.g., 1 Cor. x. 32, "Give no occasion of stumbling to Jews
or Greeks or to the church of God "). Nor does this mere juxtaposition
satisfy him. He goes on to the conception of this new creation as that which
is to embrace both Jews and Greeks, rising above the differences of both peoples
ilito a higher unity. The people of Christ are not a third people to him beside
their neighbours. 'I'liey represent the new grade on which human history reaches
its constutitnatiou, a grade which is to supersede the previous grade of bisection,
cancelling or annulling not only national but also social and even sexual distil
etions.2 Compare, e.g., Gal. iii. 28
00K ev1 'Iov&21oc ovde "EXXs7v, OUK €S't Up~€51 ICut Oqw'
7r(;5IT€c )/up ~si X pw r 'i' o o~, or Gal. v. G : esi X pioT~~
'Iq~oU OUTC 7r€pLTOf2tj Ti (0XUG.L OU'Te WCpo,3u0Tia, (LXXU 7rWT1c (11'
uyu;, )s wepyov~~vsj (cp. vi. 15, ore yap 7r€ptTop.sI Ti ?st?? 0tT€
(J.lepo/300TIa, UXXU KaIO r~ioic, and 2 Ctrl'. v. 17).
1 Cor. xii. 13: ~s ~s' ~ 7rveu/.saTt l//i€Lc -iravTec eic w ow/J.a €fia7rTw
OI7/.L€l', CLTE 'Iov8atot €tTC "EXXs7sieg, COre ~oU/\0t CLT€
€X€uOcpot.

\5/ Even in the passage from Colossians the common expression "Greek and
Jew, circumcision and uncircuutcision"(°EAA~v lcd 'lo&ios, 7rEpLTO/
Ka1 &Itpo$uor(a) is put first ; "barbarian, Scythian, bond and free
" ($cipapos, ,ciiOs, oiXos, iXwOepos) follows as a rhetorical amplification.

\6/ It was in the conception of Christ as the second Adam that the conception
of the new humanity as opposed to the old, a conception which implies a dual
division, was most deeply rooted. The former idea obviously played a leading
part in the world of Pauline thought, but it was not introduced for the first
time by hiw ; in the Messianic system of the Jews this idea already held a place
of its own, In Paul and in other Christian thinkers the idea of a dual classification
of mankind intersects that of a triple classification, but both ideas are at
one in this, that the new humanity cancels the old.

Greeks (Gentiles), Jews, and the Christians as the new People (destined to
embrace the two first) -- this triple division now becomes frequent in early Christian
literature, as one or two examples will show.i

\5/ For Christians as the new People, see the " Shepherd " of Hernsas,
and Barn. V. 7 (Xpio-rs) ktur~ r, v Aaai' TbP icaw~p E'rot,s Cwy (Christ preparing
himself the new people) ; vii. 5, 6r~p a/Lapru p ~E'AAwv roe Xaov TO Icaivs
1rpourrpsiv T4;+ epics (Christ about to offer his flesh for the sins of the
new people) ; xiii. 6, Th' Aabv rorov [new and evidently young] i(t'ai TpwTov
(ye see that this people is the first) ; 2 Clem. ad Cor, ii. 3, ~pipsos ?~ducei
€Tvai 67r Toy 0€oi 6 Aabs E'!'LWy, PUS1 ~~ ,r,OrE6Tap7€s ,rXEloy€s
~yEPd4EOa Tcv o,coE'prwp ix~iv 0eov (" Our people seemed to be forsaken
of God, but now we have become more numerous by our faith than those who seemed
to possess God"); Ignato, ad Zpkes., xix.-xx. ; Aristides, Afiol., xvi.
(" truly this people is new, and a divine admixture is in them") ;
Os-ac. Sibyll., i. 333 f., $Aaovbs YEds av8fKEfEV rf €'Oiuy (" a fresh
growth shall blossom out of the Gentiles "). ]3ardesanes also calls the
Christians a new race. Clement (Paed., I. V. 15, on Zech. ix. q) remarks : 06c
Tb 1r,Aop eip,pc€'vai pdeov, 6Xlm.a pal rb yEop lrp0KE'0fllr€y ai'r~~,
i3tv E'v XpLO-TI vEo7aiap rms avop rd-r,-og . . . ~p~a(vwv (" To say 'colt'
was not enough ; 'young' had to be added, in order to bring out the youth of
humanity"); and in I, v. 20 lie observes, pies 6 tads 6 mcauslr rp?ss 6vTi~zao-rokly
isi 7rpEO$UTE'pOU Aao~ Ta YE'S /SS0dVTEs ayaOri (" In contradistinction
to the older people, the new people are young because they have learned the
new blessings "). See also 1. vii. 58, meal yap p ,i,s 6.im.,Ois ~u6 p~v
Mwi'o€ws ~ai~aywyas d Input's Tel' ?eoi) roi iraXaioU, ~L' a6roi ~~ TOU
VE'OU IcaOsfl'E/si.w aoi, lrpdow,rov 7rp c rpJow1rov (" For it was really
the Lord who instructed the ancient people by Moses; but the new people lie
directs himself, face to face "). The expression " new people"
was retained for a long while in those early clays ; cp., e.g, Constant., ads.
Coel. xix., car& pd VOW ToU Ti$€pfov ~ TOi; lwTflpOs €~~Xap/'c
irapouefa . . . i) TE WE'S TOY 5E'psoe ~~c~oXi~ evvEorfl, K.T.?. (" About
the time of Tiberius the advent of the

[[245]]
The fourth evaisgelist makes Christ say (x. 16) : "And other sheep have
I which are not of this fold ; then also I must bring, and they shall hear my
voice, and there shall be one flock, olse shepherd." And again, in a profound
prophetic utterance (iv. 21 f.) : "The hour coineth when neither in this
inouiitain [that of the Samaritans, who stand here as representatives of the
Gentiles] nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the I`'ather ; ye worship what ye
know not; we worship what we know, for salvation is o£ the Jews. But the
hour coneth and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit and truth." This passage is of importance, because it is something
more than a merely formal classification ; it defines, in a positive maimer,
the three possible religious standpoints and apportions then among the different
peoples. First of all, there is ignorance of God, together with an external
and therefore an erroneous worship (=the Gentiles, or Samaritans) ; secondly,
there is a true knowledge of God together with a wrong, external worship (=
the Jews) ; and thirdly, there is true knowledge of God together with worship
that is inward and

Saviour flashed on the world .... and the new succession of the people arose,"
etc.). On the other hand, Christians are also the "non-gees," since
they are not a nation ; cp. Orig., Horn. I. in Ps. xxxvi. (vol. xii. p. i) :
" Nos sumus non gees' [Dent. xxxii. as], qui pauci ex ista civitate credimus,
et alli ex alia, et nusquarn gees integra ab initio credulitatis videtur assumpta.
Non mini sicut ludacoruin gems erat vel Aegyptiorum gems its etiann Christianorum
genus gems est una vel integra, red sparsim ex singulis gentibus congregantur."
-- For Christians as a distinctive genus, or as the genus of the truly pious,
see Mart. Polyc., iii., i) 75555i11711 To'J tI€OLXQUS meal 0soar~ois ',ss'vuus
t?? XpseTiavc" (" the brave spirit of the God-beloved and God-fearing
race of Christiaus ") ; xiv., irap T? 7ip05 T&P ~mmeaiwe ("the
whole race of the righteous"); Martyr. I,gnat. Anlioci,., ii., -r ~ TWY
XpwTsaP&i. 0EOOE$ S ywor (the pious race of Christians). Also Melito, in
Eus., H.L., iv. z6. 5, ~a Tm'lJ' B€oa~$w v'ros (" the race of the
pious "), Arnobius, i, r (" Christians gems"), pseudo-Josephus,
7'estins7 de Clzristo (ri 55U"XOY T5H' XpieTsSmvs)v-the tribe of the Christians)
; Orac. Sibyll., iv. 136; sio~$iwv ~vAop, etc. Several educated Christians correlated
the idea of a new and at the same time a universal people with the Stoic cosmopolitan
idea, as, for example, Tertuilian, who points out more than once that Christians
only recognise one state, i.e., the world. Similarly, Tatian writes (Oral. xxviii.):
"I repudiate your legislation ; there ought to be only one common polity
for all men" (rig irap' 6s7v ,nSTE'-yYWY v0/Ao06rr(as' puss pil" y&p
E'XP1P ETYSL CSl ICOLVi1P 1571t(YTWW Ti)I ,roAirsicmv). This democratic and
cosmopolitan feature of Christianity was undoubtedly of great use to the propaganda
among the lower and middle classes, particularly throughout the provinces. Religious
equality was felt, up to a certain degree, to mean political and social equality
as well.

[[246]] therefore true (=the Christians). This view gave rise to nlan'y similar
conceptions in early Christianity ; it was the precursor of a series of cognate
ideas which formed the basis of early Christian speculations upon the history
of religion. It was the so-called "gnostics" in particular who frankly
built their systems upon ideas of this kind. In these systems, Greeks (or pagans),
Jews, and Christians sometimes appear as different grades ; sometimes the two
first are combined, with Christians subdivided into " psychic" ('fwx~Kot)
and " pneumatic " (o-v€u/LcTucot) members ; and finally a fourfold
division is also visible, viz., Greeks (or pagans), Jews, churchfolk, and "plteum.atic"
persons.z During that period, when religions were undergoing transformation,
speculations on the history of religion were in the air; they are to be met
with even in inferior and extravagant systems of religion.2 But from all this
we must turn back to writers of the Catholic church with their triple classification.

\6/ It is impossible here to go into the question of how this ethnological
division of humanity intersected and squared with the other religious division
made by the gnostics, viz., the psychological (into ''hylic," "psychic,"
and "pneumatic"
persons).

\7/ With regard to the religious system of the adherents of Simon Magus, we
have this fragmentary and obscure piece of information in Irenxus (I. xxiii.)
: Simon taught that "he himself was he who had appeared among the Jews
as the Son, who had descended in Salnaria as the Father, and made his advent
among other rtatiomss as the holy Spirit " (" Semctipsum esse qui
inter Judaeos qiIidem quasi fllius apparuerit, in Samaria auteni quasi paten
descendent, in reliquis vero gentibus quasi spirilus sanctus adventaverit ").

[[247]] do you keep what you have learnt from us holily and justly, worshipping
God anew through Christ. For we find its the scriptures, as the Lord saith,
Behold I make a isew covenant with you, not as I made it with your fathers in
Mount ITorch. A new covenant he has made with us, for that of the Greeks and
Jews is old, but ye who worship him anew in the third manner are Christians
").i

This writer also distinguishes Greeks, Jews, and Christians, and distinguishes
them, like the fourth evangelist, by the degree of their knowledge and worship
of God. But the remarkable thing is his explicit assumption that there are three
classes, neither more nor less, and his deliberate description of Christianity
as the new or third genus of worship. There are several similar passages which
remain to be noticed, but this is the earliest of theist all. Only, it is to
be remarked that Christians do not yet call themselves "the third race";
it is their worship which is put third in the scale. The writer classifies humanity,
not into three peoples, but into three groups of worshippers.

Similarly the unknown author of the epistle to Diognetus. Only, with him the
conception of three classes of worshippers is definitely carried over into that
of three peoples (" Christians esteem not those whom the Greeks regard
as gods, nor do they observe the superstition o£ the Jews . . . . [thou
enquirest] about the nature of this fresh development or interest which has
entered life now and isot previously," ch. i. ; cp. also ch. v. "They
are attacked as aliens by the Jews, and persecuted by the Greeks "). This
is brought out particularly in his endeavour to prove that as Christians have
a special manner of life, existing socially and politically by themselves, they
have a legitimate claim to be ranked as a special "nation."

In his Apology to the Emperor Pius, Aristides distinctly arranges human beings
in three "orders," which are equivalent to nations, as Aristides assigns
to each its geneal?gy -- i.e., its historical origin. He writes (oh. ii.) : 5avcp~v
)~p €OTC ~th (3ao-mXeu, OTt Tpa )/eVil E101Y Uv0pWirWV €1) T?~8C Tcp
KOO/ q) the

\8/ The tern "religio Christians" does not occur till Terlullian,
who uses it quite frequently. The apologists speak of the distinctive OEoKE'$eta
of Christians.

How seriously Irenus took this idea of the Christians as a special people,
is evident from his remarks in iv. 30. The gnostics had attacked the Jews and
their God for having appropriated the gold and silver vessels of the Egyptians.
To which Irena us retorts that it would be much more true to accuse Christians
of robbery, inasmuch as all their possessions originated with the Romans. "Who
has the better right to gold and silver? The Jews, who took it as a reward for
their labour in Egypt? or we, who have taken gold from the Romans and the rest
of the nations, though they were not our debtors?" This argument would
be meaningless unless Irenxus regarded Christians as a nation which was sharply
differentiated from the rest of the peoples and had no longer anything to do
with them. As a matter of fact, he regarded the exodus of Israel from Egypt
as a type of the " profectio ecclesiae e gen tibus " (iv. 30. 4).

The religious philosophy of history set forth by Clement of Alexandria rests
entirely upon the view that these two nations,

\9/ "It is clear to us, O king, that there are three orders of mankind
in this world ; these are, the worshippers of your acknowledged gods, the Jews,
and the Christians. Furthermore, those who worship a plurality of gods are again
divided into three orders, viz., Chaldeans, Greeks, and Egyptians." In
the Syrian and Armenian versions the passage runs somewhat otherwise. "This
is clear, O king, that there are four races of men in the world, barbarians
and Greeks, Jews and Christians" (omitting altogether the further subdivision
of the Greeks into three classes). Several scholars prefer this rendering, though
it should be noted that Ilippolytus also, in Philes., x. 30 (twice) and 31 (twice),
contrasts the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Greeks with the Jews and Christians.
Still, the question is one of minor importance for our present purpose. -- Justin
(Dial. cxxiii.) also derives Christians from Christ, not as their teacher but
as their progenitor cur /t,r) rod h'hs'Iaeac$ E'aewoe, Toe cal 'Iopa A 8 v-oe,
i~ iriiv /vs 7rporfl-ydpeero'taccucB lcal;Iopa~A, OU'T() ICa1 ~s€is &,r~
Toe y~'r7e vTos ~Mas E7s e€bY Xp~oroii . . Cal Arue i-/tree n8v/t ,caAeiuE9a
Cal cuo,de As all your nation has been called Jacob and Israel from the one
man Jacob, who was surnamed Israel, so from Christ who begot us unto God e are
called, and we are, God's true children ").

[[249]] Greeks and Jews, were alike trained by God, but that they are now (see
Paul's epistle to the Ephesians) to be raised into the higher unity of a third
nation. It may suffice to bring forward three passages bearing on this point.
In Strom., iii. 10. 70, he writes (on the saying "where two or three are
gathered together," etc.): e~~ 6' dv ,cai ~advota raw 7roXXwv isiro TOiv
TpLWV apsesou ssvi ,ueO' hi 6 ici1ptoc, ia eKKXP O- a, 6 ei avOpwTOc, ~o ysvoc
~6 ev. i7 tt Tt rci-ix rv roi w6c roI 'Iou8aiou 6 Kupsoc vop060Twv
7rpo~5)s7TEuwv 8€ ij8IJ rat TOV 'Iepe uav aIrOOTEXXWv etc Ba%3uXwwu, aXXs
scat ~otic eat €wWw &a Tslc 7rpoc/)ilTecac ,caXww, wy~ye Xaouc ToUf
8~o, TptTOc tIe ;v eK TOW tIt'€W KT i~cp.woc e?s Kawov aiM pwrov, ip Sij
e/L1repsTaTe ~ Td Kat KarosKe ~ ev avTfl Tfl €KKXi7OL
g
(" Now the harmony of the many, calculated from the three with whom the
Lord is present, might signify the one church, the one man, the one race. Or
was the Lord legislating with the one Jew [at Sinai], and then, when he prophesied
and sent Jeremiah to Babylon, calling some also from the heathen, did he collect
the two peoples together, while the third was created out of the twain into
a new man, wherein he is now resident, dwelling within the church"). Again,
in Strom., v. 14. 98, on Plato's Republic, iii. p. 415: ci cs TL TpeZc -rwac
ti1roTr& revoc ~'uo-etc, TpdiS' roXLT6tac, WI tiir€Xa~ov Twcc, 6taypa~cs,
cal lou8uiwv ,w izpyvp&v, 'EXArvwv 6~ rpl'r;)v [a corrupt passage, incorrectly
read as early as Eus., Prepar., xiii. 13'; on the margin of L there is the lemma,
'EXX4vwv as8~7ptzv x X,~v, X ps~rsavoiv ~pu~qv], X psaTtuvww 8, oic 6 6 f3aa-sXtic
c eyKaTa/ bttKTay Tai dysov
~vc6ca (" Unless he means by his hypothesis of three natures to
describe, as some conjecture, three polities, the Jews being the
silver one, and the Greeks the third [the lemma running thus :
"The Greeks being the iron or brass one, and the Christians
the gold one "], along with the Christians, with whom the regal
gold is mixed, even the holy Spirit "). Finally, in Strom., vi.
5. 42: esc y0W) T?11 EXX7VIK?Jg 7raLtIEs.af, aXXcs scat cc Till vo/LLIcl7c
€11 70 w ywOI Tot) a-w°o/.Lei'ou crwayavTac Xaou 01 Tilt' -lrIcrTsv
irpoos~~wot, oil x,o vw &a1pou uw TWV Tpsww Xawv, wa t?? ~ract~ rnroXa$ot
TpLTTaI, ,c.T.X. (" From the Hellenic discipline, as also from that of
the law, those who accept the faith are gathered into the one race of the people
who are saved -- not [[250]] that the peoples are separated by time, as though
one were to suggest three different natures," etc.).'

Evidence may be led also from other early Christian writers to show that the
triad of "Greeks (Gentiles), Jews, and Christians " was the church's
basal conception of history. It was employed with especial frequency in the
interpretation of biblical stories. Thus Tertullian enlists it in his exposition
of the prodigal son (de Pudic., viii, f.) ; Hippolytus (Comm. in Daniel, ed.
Bonwetsch, p. 32) finds the Christians in Susanna, and the Greeks and Jews in
the two elders who lay snares for her ; while pseudo-Cyprian (de Mont. Sina
et Sion, vii.) explains that the two thieves represent the Greeks and Jews.
But, so far as I am aware, the blunt expression "We Christians are the
third race" only occurs once in early Christian literature subsequent to
the Preaching of Peter (where, moreover, it is simply Christian worship which
is described as the third class), and that is in the pseudo-Cyprianic tract
Lie Pascha Computes (c. 17), written in 242-243 A.D. Unfortunately, the context
of the expression is not quite clear. Speaking of hell-fire, the author declares
it has consumed the opponents of Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, "et ipsos
tres pueros a dei filio protector-in mysterio nostro qui surnus tertium genus
hominum - non vexavit " ("Without hurting, however, those three lads,
protected by the Son of God -- in the mystery which pertains to us who are the
third race of mankind"). ' It is hard to see how the writer could feel
he was reminded of Christians as the third race of men by the three children
who were all-pleasing in God's sight, although they were cast into the fiery
furnace ; still, reminded he was, and at any rate the inference to be drawn
from the passage is that he must have been familiar with the description of
Christians as a "third race." What sense he attached to it, we

\10/ Clement (Strong,, 11. 15. 67) once heard a " wise man" explain
that Gentiles (" seat of the ungodly"), Jews (" way of sinners"),
and heretics ("seat of the scornful") were meant in Pso i. i. This
addition of ''heretics" is simply due to the passage under discussion.

\11/ The letter of Hadrian to Servianus (Vopise., Saturn/n., Viii.) is to be
included among these witnesses, if it is a Christian fabrication: "Hunc
(nummum) Christians, hunc Judaei, hunc omnes venerantur et genies" ("
Christians, Jews, and all nations worship this one thing, money").

[[251]] are not yet in a position to determine with any certainty ; but we
are bound to assume, in the first instance, from our previous investigations,
that Christians were to him a third race alongside of the Greeks (Gentiles)
and Jews. Whether this assumption is corn^.ct or false, is a question to be
decided in the second section of our inquiry.

II

The consciousness of being a people,' and of being indeed the oprimitive and
the new people, did not remain abstract or unfruitful in the church ; it was
developed in a great variety of directions. In this respect also the synagogue
had led the way at every point, but Christianity met its claim by making that
claim her own and extending it, wherever this was possible, beyond the limits
within which Judaism had confined it.

There were three cardinal directions in which the church voiced her peculiar
consciousness of being the primitive people. (1) She demonstrated that, like
any other people, she had a characteristic life. (2) She tried to show that
so far as the philosophical learning, the worship, and the polity of other peoples
were praiseworthy, they were plagiarized from the Christian religion. (3) She
began to set on foot, though merely in the shape of tentative ideas, some political
reflections upon her own actual importance within the world-empire of Rome,
and also upon the positive relation between the latter and herself as the new
religion for the world.

1. The proofs advanced by early Christianity with regard to its ToXr-t-da were
twofold. The theme of one set was stated by Paul in Philippians iii. 20 : "Our
citizenship (,roXtT€ia) is in

\12/ Cp. the first book of the Church History of Eusebius, especially ch. iv.:
T7Js
uw y&p roi 0CST7IPOs uv 'Iooi Xp o rov" rapsucr(as vEWOTl ir&ow
~vOp sro~s s',ri. VEov ~/2o&Oyw/.LwWs iwos, ov /J.LKpbv ova' &OOw~s
sH' girl ywvias xou
ys7s i~puhww, &XX& sal ,r LYTwv TOV Os' r srswavOpw7r6raro'v TE Sal
TO To 5,rao T17 rov xpLsTw 1rposnyopi TETI/.npso'Vov ("It is agreed
that when the appearance of our Saviour Jesus Christ recently broke upon all
men, there appeared a ,zebu nation, admittedly neither small nor weak nor dwelling
in any corner of the earth, but the most numerous and pious of all nations .
, honoured by all men with the title of Christ''),

[[252]] heaven" (cp. Heb. xiii. 13 f.: "Let us go outside the camp
.
for here we have no permasient city, but we seek one
which- is to come "). On this view Christians feel themselves
pilgrims and sojourners on earth, walking by faith and not by
sight ; their whole course of life is a renunciation of the world,
and is determined solely by the future kingdom towards which
they hasten. This node of life is voiced niost loudly in the
first similitude of Herman, where two cities with their two lords
are set in opposition -- one belonging to the present, time other
to the future. The Christian must have nothing whatever to
do with the former city and its lord the devil ; his whole course
of life must be opposed to that of the present city, with its
arrangements and laws. In this way Christians were able
emphatically to represent themselves as really a special people,
with a distinctive course of life ; but they need not have felt;
surprised when people took them at their word, and dismissed
them with the remark : 7rcere €auTot/f (/)OVCUn-cXUTCf iropcu€ndc?
ij n-epa TOv O€ov at ij/J.LV wpa'y/LaTa ~ij 7rap€~eT€ ("
Go and kill yourselves, every one of you ; begone to God at once, and leave
us in peace "), quoted by Justin, iIpol., II. iv.

This, however, represented but one side of the proof that Christianity had
a characteristic life and order of its own. With equal energy an attempt was
made to show that there was a polity realized in Christianity which was differentiated
from that of other nations by its absolute morality (see above, pp. ZO5 f.).
As early as the apostolic epistles, no point of dogma is more emphatically brought
forward than the duty of a holy life, by means of which Christians are to shine
as lights amid a corrupt and crooked generation. "Not like the Gentiles,"
nor like the Jews, but as the people of God -- that is the watchword. Every sphere
of life, down to the most intimate and trivial, was put under the control of
the Spirit and ie-arranged; we have only to read the 1)idache in order to find
out the earnestness with which Christians took " the way of life."
In line with this, a leading section in all the Christian apologies was occupied
by the exposition of the Christian polity as a polity which was purely ethical,
the object being in every case to show that this Christian polity was in accordance
with the highest moral [[253]] standards, standards which even its opponents
had to recognize, and that for this very reason it was opposed to the polity
of the other nations. The Apolog~es of Justin (especially I. xiv. f.), Aristides
(xv.), Tatian and Tertullian especially, fall to be considered in this light.'
The conviction that they are in possession of a distinctive polity is also voiced
in the notion of Christians as the army of the true God and of Christ.2
2. The strict morality, the monotheistic view of the world, and the subordination
of the entire life of man, private and social, to the regulations of a supreme
ethical code -- all this is " what has been from the very first" ("
quod ah initio fuit "). Now as the church finds this once more repeated
in her own life, she recognizes in this phenoinenonthe guarantee that she herself,
though apparently the youngest of the nations, is in reality the oldest. Furthermore,
as she undertakes to bring forward proof for this conviction by drawing upon
the books of Moses, which she appropriated for her own use (cp. Tatian, Theophilus,

\13/ The belauded description in the epistle to Diognetus (v. 6) is a fine
piece of
rhetoric, but not much more than that. The author manages to express three aspects,
as it were, in a single breath : the Christian polity as the climax of morals,
the Christian aloofness from the world, and the inwardness by which this religion
'was enabled to live in the midst of the world and adapt itself to all outward
conditions without any loss of purity. A man who is able to weave these ideas
into flne perfect woof, either stands on the high level of the fourth evangelist -- a
position to which the author can hardly be promoted -- or else incurs the suspicion
of paying no serious attention to any one of the three ideas in question.
\14/ Ilermas (Sun., ix. 17) brings forward one most important aspect of the
Christian polity, viz., its power of combining in a mental and moral wnz/y peoples
of the most varied capacities and customs. The stones built into the tower (i.e.,
the church) from the various mountains (the nations) are at first many-coloured,
but upon being built in, they all acquire the same white colour : A5th,'TEs
Ijv
e~pay~~a ~(aY ~psVfoi5 & ov Sal lyre z'oh', ica1 ,(a ir(or,s auwy &yEVETO
ica1
TovTo 7 oiCO~o/A?i Till' irdpyov ILK ypI E"yEVETO xucirp& ~s
1 (" On receiving the seal they had one understanding and one mind, one
faith and one love became theirs . . . wherefore the fabric of the tower became
of one colour, bright as the sun ") ; cp. also Iron., I, so. 2. Celsus
(c. Cels., VIII, Ixxiio) longed ardently for such a unity of mankind, instead
of humanity being
split up into nationalities. But he regarded it as a mere Utopia. E( y&p
~s oTds
Is siro L's o v '/ povi o ai vdj,ros roes "w 'As-far sat Eapshriiv rral
Am8v,p' °EX~-,1vc1's IC
cal $ap$a'poiis ~xpL irspd'rsw vw~,ipivovs ("Were it at all possible that
the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, Greeks and barbarians alike, should
unite to obey one law "). On which Origen remarks : &&ih'a-ros'
'rOCTO vo/,s(o'as EYl'ui lirii/wpsi [sco Celsus] STS ~ 'ro,"ro Olll,UEyOS'
o1 5P ov~sy (' Judging this an innpossibility, he adds that anyone who thinks
it possible knows nothing at all").

[[254]] Clement, Teitullian, and Julius Africanus),1 she is thereby dethroning
the Jewish people and claiming for herself the primitive revelation, the primitive
wisdom, and the genuine worship. Hence she acquires the requisite insight and
courage, not merely to survey and appropriate for herself the content of all
connected with revelation, wisdom, and worship that had appeared on the horizon
of other nations, but to survey and estimate these materials as if they were
merely copies made from an original in her own possession. We all know the space
devoted by the early Christian apologies to the proof that Greek philosophy,
so far as it merited praise and was itself correct, had been plagiarized from
the primitive literature which belonged to Christians. The efforts made iii
this direction culminate in the statement that " Whatever truth is uttered
anywhere has come from us." The audacity of this assertion is apt to hide
from us at this time of day the grandeur and vigour of the selfconsciousness
to which it gives expression. Justin had already claimed any true piece of knowledge
as "Christian," whether it occurred in Homer, the tragedians, the
comic poets, or the philosophers. Did it never dawn on him, or did he really
suspect, that his entire standpoint was upset by such an extension of its range,
amid that what was specifically " Christian" was transformed into
what was common to all inert? Clement of Alexandria, at any rate, who followed
him in this line of thought, not merely foresaw this inference, but deliberately
followed it up.

By comparing itself with philosophy, early Christianity gave itself out as
a "philosophy," while those who professed it were philosophers."
This, however, is one form of its self-consciousness which must not be overrated,
for it is almost exclusively confined to the Christian apologetic and polemic.
Christians never doubted, indeed, that their doctrine was really the truth,
and therefore the true philosophy. But theim it was infinitely more than a philosophy.
It was the wisdom of God. They too were different from mere philosophers ; they
were God's

\15/ Note in passing that this marks the beginning in general of the universal
chronography of history, and consequently of the general Christian outlook upon
the entire course of human history.

[[ 255]]
people, God's friends. It suited their polemic, however, to designate Christianity
as philosophy, or "barbarian" philosophy, and adherents of Christianity
as "philosophers." And that for two reasons. In the first place, it
was the only way of ex!)laining to outsiders the nature of Christian doctrine -- for
to institute a positive comparison between it and pagan religions was a risky
procedure. And in the second place, this presupposition made it possible for
Christians to demand from the State as liberal treatment for themselves as that
accorded to philosophy and to philosophic schools. It is in this light, pre-eminently,
that we must understand the favourite parallel drawn by the apologists between
Christianity and philosophy. Individual teachers who were at the head either
of a school (&&5o-KuX€wv) within the, church or of an independent
schOol, did take the parallel more seriously ; 1 but such persons were in a
certain sense merely adjuncts of catholic Christendom.2
The charge of plagiarism was not merely levelled against philosophy, so far
as philosophy was genuine, but also against any rites and methods of worship
which furnished actual or alleged parallels to those of Christianity. Little
material of this kind was to be found in the ofilcial cults of the Greeks arsd
itonians, but this deficiency was more than remade up for by the rich spoil
which lay in the mysteries and the exotic cults, the cult o£ Mithra, in
particular, attracting the attention of Christian apologists in this connection
at a very early period. The verdict on all such features was quite simple :
the denmons, it was argued, had imitated Christian rites in the cults of paganism.
If it could not be denied that those pagan rites and sacraments were older than
their Christian parallels, the plea readily suggested itself that time demons
had given a

\16/ Such teachers, with their small groups, hardly felt themselves to be the
" prinitive people." Their consciousness of entire independence was
expressed in the titles of 'gifted "and "learned." We shall have
to discuss the Christian ltlaeeaAeIa and its significance for the Christian
propaganda in another connection; but we can well understand how pagans found
the Christians' claim to be "learned '4 and "philosophers" a
peculiarly ridiculous and presumptuous pretension. On their part, they dubbed
Christians as credulous, and scoffed at them ~s ,ruj'l'sl ("believers "),
who put faith in foreign fables and old wives' gossip.

\17/ They have nothing to do with the primitive shape assumed by Christianity,
that of Jesus as the teacher and the disciples as his pupils.

[[256]] distorted copy of Christianity previous to its real appearance, with
the object of discrediting it beforehand. Baptism, the Lord's supper, the rites
of expiation, the cross, etc., are instances in point. The interests of dogma
are always able to impinge on history, and they do so constantly. But here we
have to consider some cases which are specially instructive, since the Christian
rites and sacraments attained their final shape under the ililluence of the
mysteries and their rites (not, of course, the rites of any special cultus,
but those belonging to the general type of the mysteries), so that dogma made
the final issue of the process its first cause. Yet even in this field the quid
ps o quo appears in a more favourable light when we notice that Christendom
'posits itself as the original People at the dawn of human history, and that
this consciousness determines their entire outlook upon that history. For, in
the light of this presupposition, the Christians' confiscation of those pagan
rites and ceremonies simply denotes the assertion of their character as ideally
human and therefore divine. Christians embody the fundamental principles of
that divine revelation and worship which are the source of human history, and
which constitute the primitive possession of Christianity, although that possession
has of course lain undiscovered till the present moment.

3. The most interesting side of the Christian consciousness of being a people,
is what may be termed, in the narrower sense of the word, the political. Hitherto,
however, it has been studied less than the others. The materials are copious,
but up till now little attention has been paid to them. I shall content myself
here with laying bare the points of most inportance.i

The political consciousness of the primitive church was based on three presuppositions.
There was first of all the political element in the Jewish apocalyptic, which
was called forth by the demand of the imperial cultus and the terror of the
persecution. Then there was the rapid transference of the gospel from

\18/ Tertullian's sentence (Apol., xxxviii.) : " Nulls magis res nobis
aliens qusm publics ; unam omnium rempublicam agnoscinuis, umndum " ("
Nothing is more alien to us than politics ; we acknowledge but one universal
state, the world ") has a Stoic tinge; at best, it may be taken with a
grain of salt. Besides, people who despise the state always pursue a verb, active
policy of their own.

[[257]] the Jews to the Greeks, and the unmistakable affinity between Christianity
and Hellenistn, as well as between the church and the world-wide power of Rome.
Thirdly, there was the fall and ruin of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. The
first of these eletnr nts stood its antithesis to the two others, so that in
this way the political consciousness of the church canne to be defined in opposite
directions and had to work itself out of initial contradictions.

The politics of Jewish apocalyptic viewed the world-state as a diabolic state,
and consequently took up a purely negative attitude towards it. This political
view is put unconpromisingly in the apocalypse of John, where it was justified
by the Neronic persecution, the imperial claim for worship, and the Domitianic
reign of terror. The largest share of attention, comparatively speaking, has
been devoted by scholars to this political standpoint, in so far as it lasted
throughout the second and the third centuries, and quite recently (1901) Neumann
has discussed it thoroughly in his study of Ilippolytus. The remarkable thing
is thatoalthough Christians were by no means nunmerous till after the middle
of the second century, they recognized that Christianity formed the central
point of humanity as the field of political history as well as its deterimmining
factor. Such a self-consciousness is perfectly intelligible in the case of Judaism,
for the Jews were really a large nation and had a great history behind them.
But it is truly amazing that a tiny set of people should confront the entire
strength of the Roman empire,i that it should see in the persecution of the
Christians the chief role of that empire, and that it should make [[258]]

\19/ Tertullian was the first who was able to threaten the state with the great
number of Christians (Apol., xxxvii., written shortly before 200 n.D.), for
up till then people had merely endeavoured to hold out the terrors of the calamities
at the close of the world and the return of Christ. Although Christians still
lacked a majority in the empire, still (from the outset) a substitute for this,
so to speak, was found in the telling fact of the broad diffusion of Christianity
throughout the whole empire and beyond its bounds. Even as early as the first
generations, the fact that Christians were to be found everywhere strengthened
and moulded their self.consciousness. In contrast to nations shut up within
definite boundaries, even though these were as large as those of the Yarthians,
Tertullian calls Christians (Apol., xxxvii.) the " gems totius orbis,"
i.e., the people of the whole world. And this had been felt long before even
Tertullian wrote.

the world's history culminate in such a conflict. The only explanation of this
lies in the fact that the church simply took the place of Israel, and consequently
felt herself to be a people; this implied that she was also a political factor,
and indeed the factor which ranked as decisive alongside of the state and 'by
which in the end the state was to be overcome. Here we have already the great
problem of "church and state" makimig its appearance, and the uncompromising
form given to it at this period l)cCante norttial for succeeding ages. The relationship
between these two powers assumed other forms, but this form cotttumued to lie
concealed beneath them all.

This, however, is only one side of the question. The transition of the gospel
from the dews to the Greeks, the unmistakable affinity between Christianity
and 1-lellenismn, as well as between the church and the ilomnaim world-power,
and finally the downfall of the Jewish state at the hands of Rome -- these lactors
occasioned ideas upon the relation of the empire to the church which were very
different from the aims of the accepted apocalyptic. Any systematic treatment
of this view would be cut of place, however; it would give a wrong impression
of the situation. rube better way will be, as we are dealing merely with tentative
ideas, to get acquainted with the most important features and look at theni
one after another.

2 Thess. ii. 5-7 is the oldest passage in Christian literature in which a
positive mileaning is attached to the Roman empire. Ii; is represented there,
not as the realm of antichrist, but, on the contrary, as the restraining power
by means of which tLe final terrors and the advent of antichrist are held in
check. For by 'i-a KuT~Xcw (~ KaT~Xwv), " that which (or he who) restrains,"
we must understand the Roman empire. If this be so, it follows that the church
and the empire could not be considered merely as diametrically opposed to each
other. Roan. xiii. 1 f: makes this quite plain, and proceeds to draw the iiifei'eimce
that civil authority is Oeo~ &c&ovoc (" a minister of God "),
appointed by God for the suppression of wickedness ; resistance to it means
resistance to a divine ordinance. Coimsequently one must not merely yield to
its force, but obey it for conscience' sake. The very ~)aymem1t of taxes is
a moral

[[259]] duty. The author of 1 Pet. ii. 13 f.' expresses himself in similar
terms. But he goes a step further, following up the fear of God directly with
honour due to the emperor (7rvTuc
T1/L1/OUT€, T7v U(3€X ??t?yta yuvTUT€, TOt' Oct31' 1 O(35W O€,
Tot'
f e'7LXca TLp.aT€).2 Nothing could be more loyal than this
conception, and it is noticeable that the author was writing in Asia Minor,
among the provinces where the iniperial cultus
flourished.

Luke begins his account of Christ with the words (iii. I):
El) TUG' )//J.€pw €ic€wamc ~ XOv &yda 7rupu Kuurupoc
lityov~Tou ~roypd~/~€rOut ~~oav TV oicouvqv. As has been
correctly surmised, the allusion to the emperor Augustus is meant to be significant.
It was the official and popt.lar idea that with Augustus a new era dawned for
the empire ; the ililperial throne was its " peace," the einpel-or
its saviour (o-wTsjp). Behind the earthly saviour, Luke makes the heavenly appearhe,
too, is bestowed upon the whole world, and what he brings is peace (ver. 14,
yi~c €?psw?).3 Luke hardly intended to set Augustus and Christ in hostile
opposition ; even Augustus and his kingdom are a sign of the new era. This may
also be

\20/ Cp. Tit. iii. i. With regard to Paul's language in Ronians, one may recollect
what a quiet and happy time the early years of Nero were.

\21/ Greek Christians usually called the emperor $aomXe~s (" icing "),
a common title in the East, where it had not the same servile associations as
"rex" had on the lips of people in the West. But $aa-mAes was also
a title of the Lord Christ (ic~p os Xpio r e) which Christians dared not avoid
uttering (not merely on account of "the kingdom of God," ~ao- efa
ro~ B~oi, but also because Jesus had called himself by this nanie : John xviii.
33 f.). This occasioned a painful dilemma, though prudent Christians made strenuous
efforts to repudiate the apparent treason which their religious usage of this
title inevitably suggested, and to make it clear that by " kingdom "
and " king" they understood nothing earthly or human, but something
divine (so already Justin's Apol., I. vi.). Some hotspurs, no doubt, declared
to their judges that they recognised only ooe king or emperor (God or Christ),
and so drew upon themselves just punishment. But these cases were very rare.
Christ was also called " imperator" in the West, but not in writings
intended for publicity.

\22/ Even the expression used in Eph, ii. 1¢, auT6s dCTw j E1P~v11 ~ rv
(" he is our peace "), is modelled on the language applied to the
emperor in Asia Minor. I have shown elsewhere how strongly this language has
influenced the terminology of Luke in the above-mentioned passage of his gospel.
No doubt we have to think of Micah v. 4, in connection with Eph. l. i4 and Like
ii. 1¢. But this converging of different limes was quite characteristic
of the age and the idea in question.

[[260]] gathered front the book of Acts, which in my opinion has not any consciously
political aim ; it sees its the Roman empire, as opposed to Judaism, the sphere
marked out for the new religion, it stands entirely aloof from any hostility
to the emperor, and it gladly lays stress upon such facts as prove a tolerant
mood on the part of the authorities towards Christians in the past.

Justin (Apol., I. xii.) writes to the emperor : upwyot riu.Iv rcrxi au,u/taXoL
Tpos .€ip~~P3) COIL V 7rat'T(vv /LLLAXOV ~vOpo crwv (" We, snore than
any others, are your helpers and allies in promoting peace "), admitting
thereby that the purpose of the empire was beneficial (pux terr'ena), and that
the estiperors sought to effect this purpose. Also, in describing Christians
as the power 1 best adapted to secure this end -- inasmuch as they shun all
crime, live a strictly moral life, and teach a strict morality, besides scaring
and exorcising those supreme enemies of mankind, the demons -- he too, iii a
curtain sense, affirms a positive relationship between the church and the state.

When the author of the epistle to Diognetus differentiates Christians from
the world (the state) as the soul from the body (vi.) and elaborates his account
of their relationship its a series of antitheses, he is laying down at the same
time a positive relation between the two magnitudes in question: ~yK KX€w-Tat
/A€V i/ T9) 0w/LaTI, cTUV€X€L 8~ aUTs/ TO TW/a ' scat X p?stta?o?
KUT~XOVTUL /LsP we w cpoupa TO) KOOLW, auTol ?? su???o?s?
TOV ic -/tor (" The soul is shut up i" the body, and yet holds the
body together ; so Christians are kept within the world as in a prison, vet
they hold the world together "). Similarly Justin (Apol., II, vii.).

All this implies already a positive political standpoint,L but

\23/ Wherever mention is made of the power of the Christian people which upholds
the state and frees humanity, it is always these two factors wluch are in view -- their
strict morality and their power over demons. Others also wield the firmer weapon,
though not so well. But the second, the power over demons, pertains to Christians
alone, and therefore they render an incomparable service to the state and t)
the human race, small though their numbers may be. From this conviction there
grew up in Christianity the consciousness of being the power which conserves
and emancipates mankind in this world.

[[261]] the furthest step in this directiosi was taken subsequently by Melito
(in Eus., KL., iv. 2G). It is no mere accident that lie writes in loyal Asia
Minor. By noting Luke's suggestion with regard to Augustus, as well as all that
had been already said elsewhere upon the positive relations subsisting between
the church and the world-empire, Melito could advance to the following statement
of the situation in his Apology to Marcus Aurelius:

"This philosophy of ours certainly did flourish at first among a barbarian
people. But springing up in the provinces under tll)' rule during the great
reign of thy predecessor Augustus, it brought rich blessings to throe empire
in particular. For ever since then the power of Rome has increased in size and
splendour ; to this bast thou succeeded as its desired possessor, and as such
shaft thou continue with thy son if thou wilt protect the philosophy which rose
under Augustus and has risen with the empire, a philosophy which throe ancestors
also held in honour along with other religions. The most convincing proof that
the flourishing of our religion has been a boon to the empire thus happily inaugurated,
is this -- that the empire has suffered no mishap since the reign of Augustus,
but, on the contrary, everything has increased its splendour and fame, in accordance
with the general prayer."

Melito's ideas 1 need no analysis ; they are plainly and clearly stated. The
world-empire and the Christian religion are fostersisters; they form a pair
; they constitute a new stage of human history ; the Christian religion means
blessing and welfare to the empire, towards which it stands as the inward to
the outward. Only when Christianity is protected and permitted to develop

$aemM'ws 'P' x ~" X"P1 OEOu, ~bsel rb irpo,5 rm,< v ,rvei1sa-ob'rws
%Yl ~f? Oe gal
T, lrap' s, roU i dy p viQ voou/4E'Y~ ~~Ept T ',r vTa 1rorraKTa, (" May
you be able to discover the heavenly kingdom by considering yourselves ! For
as all things are subject to you, father and son, who have received the kingdom
from above -- since the king's soul is in the hand of God, saith the spirit of
prophecy, -- so are all things subordinate to the one God and to the Logos proceeding
from him, even the Son, who is not apprehended apart from him ").

\25/ Tertullian's opinion was different. lie knew of no solidarity of Christianity
and the empire : " Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si art Caesares
non essent necessary saeculo, art si et Christians potuissent esse Caesares
" (Apal. xxi. "Yes, the very Caesars would have believed on Christ,
if Casars had not been necessary to the world, or if they could have been Casars
and Christians as well ").

[[262]] itself freely, does the empire continue to preserve its size and splendour.
Unless one is to suppose that Melito simply wanted to flatter -- a supposition
for which there is no ground, although there was flattery in what he said --
the inference is that in the Christianity which formed part of the world-empire
he really recognized a co-ordinate and sustaining inward force. Subsequcit t
developments justified this view of Melito, and in this light his political
insight is marvellous. But still more marvellous is the fact that at a time
like this, when Christians were still a feeble folk, he actually recognized
in Christianity the one magnitude parallel to the state, and that simply on
the ground of religion -- i.e., as being a spiritual force which was entrusted
with the function of supporting tile state.1

There is yet another early Christian writer on whom the analogy of Christendom
and the world-empire dawned (a propos of its tcunienical range) ; only, he attempted
to explain it in a very surprising fashion, which betrayed a deep hostility
towards the empire. Hippolytus writes (iii Dan., iv. 9) : " For as our
Lord was born in the forty-second year of the emperor Augustus, whence the Roman
empire developed, and as the Lord also called all nations and tongues by means
of the apostles and fashioned' believing Christians into a people, the people
of the Lord, and the people which consists of those who bear a new name -- so was
all this imitated to the letter by the empire of that day, ruling 'according
to the working of Satan': for it also collected to itself the noblest of every
nation, and, dubbing them Ronmans, got ready for the fray. And that is the reason
why the first census took place under Augustus, when our Lord was bore at Bethlehem
; it was to get the iiien of this world, who enrolled for our earthly king,
called Romans, while those who believed in a heavenly king were termed Christians,
bearing on their foreheads the sign of victory over death."

\26/ Cp. also Orig., c. Cels., VIII. lxx.: &xA' of c O' &,rd900 ' KoA,rou
rdvros &v
a €u7 ytes 'PW,ac O4 E X6/J.wOi iropiE,lovrai ~mr ,roA~4iw ~ oL' &p~7v
oovTOt, 'poupov/4Evot a,ra OE(as Iuvcurws, T?s It& icovra juc (ovs r 'rE
rdA cs
IAas ~~a~7ELAa/Lwfls itar7,rm ("According to the notion of Celsus, if all
the Rowans are brought to believe, they will either overcome their foes by praying,
or refrain from fighting altogether, being guarded by that power divine which
promised to save five entire cities for the sake' of fifty just persons ").

The oecumenical range of the Roman empire is, therefore, a
Statanic aping of Christianity. As the demons purloined Christian philosophy
and aped the Christian cultus and sacraments, so also did they perpetrate a
plagiarism against the church by founding the great imperial state of Rome !
This is the selfconsciousness of Christendom expressed in perhaps the most robust,
but also in the most audacious form imaginable ! The real cosmopolitan character
of Christianity is stated by Octavius (Miff. Telix, xxxiii.) thus : "Nos
gentes nationesque, distinguimus : deo una domus est mundus hic tutus"
(" We draw distinctions between nations arid races, but to God the whole
of this world is one household ").

Origen's political views are more accurate, but how extravagant are his ideas
! In chapters lxvii.-Ixxv. of his eighth book against Celsus, by dint of a fresh
interpretation giver) to a primitive Christian conception, and a recourse to
a Platonic idea, he propounds the idea that the church, this i oo- oc Tot) K00/LOU
(in Joh., vi. 38), or universe of the universe, is the future kingdorn of the
whole world, destined to embrace the Roman empire and humanity itself, to amalgamate
and to replace the various realms of this world.. Cp. ch. lxviii.: " For
if, in the words of Celsus, all were to do as we do, then there is no doubt
whatever that even the barbarians would become law-abiding and humane, so soon
as they obeyed the Word of God; then would all religions vanish, leaving that
of Christ alone to reign. And reign it will one day, as the Word never ceases
to gain soul after soul." This means the reversal of the primitive Christian
hope. rPhe church now presents itself as the civilizing and cohesive power which
is to create, even in the present age, a state that shall embrace an undivided
humanity. Origen, of course, is not quite sure whether this is feasible in the
present age. No further away than ch. lxxii., a propos of the question (to which
Celsus gave a negative answer) whether Asia, Europe, and Libya, Greeks and barbarians
alike, could agree to recognize one system of laws, we find him writing as follows
: "Perhaps," he says, " such a result would not indeed be possible
to those who are still in the body ; but it would not be impossible to those
who are released from the body" (Ka~ TUXU ~XjOc7is arSuvaTov (€V T~
ToLoUTo TO'

[[264]] 0W/LWTI, or) /.Lw ciswaTov Kac avroXvOew-rv auTwv).z In II. xxx. he
writes : "In the days of Jesus, righteousness arose and fulness of peace,
beginning with his birth. God prepared the nations for his teaching, by causing
the Roman emperor to rule over all the world ; there was no longer to be a plurality
of kingdoms, else would the nations have been strangers to one another, and
so the apostles would have found it harder to carry out the task laid on them
by Jesus, when he said, 'Go and teach all nations.'"

In his reply to Celsus (III. xxix.-xxx.), this great father of the church,
who was at the sane time a great and sensible statesman, submits a further political
consideration, which is not high-flown this time, but sober. It has also the
advantage of being impressive and to the point. Although the passage is somewhat
lengthy. I quote it here, as there is nothing like it in the literature of early
Christianity [Greek text in Hilt. Dogrna ii. 126}

"Apollo, according to Celsus, required the Metapontines to' consider Aristeas
as a god. But the Metapontines considered Aristeas was a man, and perhaps not
even a respectable man, and this conviction of theirs seemed to them more valid
than the declaration of the oracle that Aristeas was a god and deserving of
olivine honour. Consequently they would not obey Apollo, and no one regarded
Aristeas as a god. But with regard to Jesus, we may say that it proved a blessing
to the human race to acknowledge him as God's son, as God appearing in a human
sold arid body God, who sent Jesus, brought to nought all the conspiracies of
the demons and gave success to the gospel of Jesus over the whole earth for
the conversion and amelioration of mankind, causing churches everywhere to be
established, which should be ruled by other laws than those of superstitious,
licentious, and evil men. For such is the character of the masses who constitute
the assemblies throughout the various towns. Whereas, the churches or assemblies
of God, whom Christ instructs, are 'lights in the world,' compared to the

\27/ I do not understand, any more than Origen did, the political twaddle which
Celsus (lxxi.) professes to have heard from a Christian. It can hardly have
come from a Christian, and it is impossible nowadays to ascertain what underlay
it. I therefore pass it by.

[[265]] assemblies of the districts among which they live as strangers. For
who would riot allow that even the inferior members of the church, and such
as take a lower place when judged by the standard of more eminent Christians -- even
these are far' better people than the members of profane assemblies ?

"Take the chinch of God at Athens; it is a peaceable and orderly body,
as it desires to please God, who is over all. Whereas the assembly of the Athenians
is refractory, nor can it be compared in any respect to the local church or
assembly of God. 'The sane may be said of the church of God at Corinth and the
local assernbiy of the people, as also of the church of God at Alexandria and
the local assembly in that city. And if any candid person hears this and examines
the facts of the case with a sincere love for the truth, he will admire hint
who conceived the design and was able to realize it, establishing churches of
God to exist as strangers amid the popular assemblies of the various cities.
Furthermore, if one compares the council of the Church of' God with that of
the cities, one by one, it would be found that many a councillor of the church
is worthy to be a leader in God's city, if such a city exists in the world ;
whereas other councillors in all parts of the world show not a trait of conduct
to justify the su1)eriority born of their position, which scents to give them
precedence over their fellow-citizens. Such also is the result of any cotilparison
between the president of the church in any city and the civic magistrates. It
will be found that, in the matter of conduct, even such councillors and presidents
of the church as are extremely defective arid indolent compared to their mimore
energetic colleagues, are possessed of virtues which are iii general superior
to those of civic councillors and rulers."

At this point I shall break off' the present part of our investigation.
The evidence already brought forward will source to give sortie idea of how
Christians held thenrmselves to be the new People amid the third race of mankind,
and also of the inferences which they drew from these conceptions. But how did
the Greeks amid Romans regard this phenomenon of Christianity with its enormous
claims ? This is a question to which justice must be done in an excursus.

[[266]]

EXCURSUS

CHRISTIANS AS A THIRD RACE, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THEIR OPPONENTS

Faa a proper appreciation of the Greek and Roman estimate of Christianity,
it is essential, in the first instance, to recollect how the Jews were regarded
and estimated throughout the empire,
since it was generally known that the Christians had emanated from the Jews.

Nothing is more certain than that the Jews were distinguished throughout the
Roman empire as a special people in contrast to all others. 'Their imageless
worship (rtO€~Tgc), their stubborn refusal to participate in other cults,
together with their exclusiveness (i ), marked thetit off from all nations as
a unique people.' This uniqueness was openly acknowledged by the

\1/ There were also their special customs (circumcision, prohibition of swine's
flesh, the sabbath, etc.), but these did not contribute so seriously as a0Eorcs
and ~~ ~(a to establish the character of the Jews for uniqueness ; for customs
either identical or somewhat similar were found among other Oriental peoples
as well. For &Sso"ri (cp. my essay on "The Charge of Atheism in
the First Three Centuries," 7'e.xie n. Unlers., xxviii. 4), see P1iny,
h'isl. Nat., xiii. 4. 46 : " gens contumelies nununum insignis " ("
a race distinguished by its contempt for deities") ; Tacit., llist., v.
5 : " Judaei niente soles unumque numen intellegunt . . . , igitur nulls
sinsulacra urbibus suis, sedum tetuplis sistont ; non regibus haec adolatio
non Caesarihus honor" (` ` the Jews conceive of their deity as one, by
the mind alone ... , hence there are no images erected in their cities or evexi
in their temples. 'This reverence is not paid to kings, nor this honour to the
Casars ") ; Juv,, Salir., xiv. 97 : "nil praeter pubes et eaeli nurnen
adorant" (" they venerate simply the clouds and the deity of the sky
"), etc. For p,eavlpwirfa and ~ui~fn, see Tacit. (iac. cii.) : Apud ipsos
fides obstinate, misericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnes alios hostile odium"
(" Among themselves their honesty is inflexible, their compassion quick
to move, but to all other persons they show the hatred of antagonism ")
; and earlier still, Apollonius Molon (in Joseph., Apion., U, I4). Cp. Schdrer's
Gesrh. des jild. Vol/c., III.(', p. 4x8 [Eng, traps., II. ii. 295].

[[267]] legislation of Ci sat. Except for a brief period, the Jews were certainly
never expected to worship the emperor.. Thus they stood alone by theis.iselves
amid all the other races who were included in, or allied to, the Roman empire.
The blunt formula "We are Jews" never occurs in the Greek and Roman
literature, so far as I know ; i but the fact was there, i.e., the view was
widely current that the Jews were a national phenomerion by themselves, deficient
in those traits which were common to the other nations.2 Furthermore, in every
province and town the Jews, and the Jews alone, kept themselves aloof from the
neighbouring population by means of their constitutional position and civic
demeanour. Only, this very uniqueness of character was taken to be a defect
in public spirit and patriotism, as well as an insult and a disgrace, from Apollonius
Molon aiid Posidonius down to Pliny, 'lacitus, and later authors,3 although
one or two of the more intelligent writers did not miss the "philosophic"
character of the
Jews.4

Disengaging itself from this Jewish people, Christianity now encountered the
Greeks and Romans. In the case of Christians, some of the sources of offence
peculiar to the Jews were absent ; but the greatest ofi nce of all appeared
only in heightened colours, viz., the aOCCTmJc and the a otsra (ew-avOpwsria).
Consequently the Christian religion was described as a "superostitio nova
et malefica" (Suet., Nero, 16), as a "superstitio prava,
iiiiisiO(lica" (Plin., F j). x. 96, 97), as an "exitiabilis superstitio
(Tacit., An-pal., xv. 44), and as a "vanes et deirmeiss superstitio"
(llfir~, helix, 9), while the Christians themselves were characterized

\8/ Of the historical basis of the Christian religion and its sacred books
in the New '1`esta,nent, Porphyry and the Neoplatonists in general formed no
more favourable opinion than did Celsus, while even in the Old Testament they
found (agreeing thus far with the Christian gnostics) a great deal of folly
and falsehood. The fact is, no one, not even Celsus, criticised the gospel history
so keenly and disparagingly as Porphyry. Still, much that was to be found in
the books of Moses and in John appeared to their of value. Further, they had
a great respect' for the Christian philosoplsy of religion, and endeavoured
in all seriousness to cone to terms with it, recognizing that it approximated
more nearly than that of the gnostics to their own position. The depreciatory
estimate of the world and the dualism which they found in gnosticism seemed
to them a frivolous attack upon the Godhead. Per contra Porphyry says of Origen
: ''ills outward conduct was that of a Christian and unlawful. But he thong/it
like a Greek in his views of matter and of God, and mingled the ideas of the
Greeks with foreign fables" (in Lus., KB., vi. 19). On the attitude of
Plolinus towards the gnosis of the church and gnosticism, cp. Karl Schmidt its
lexte a. Uuters., N.F. v., part 4.

So monstrous, so re15ugnafit are those Christians (of whose faith and life
Caecilius proceeds to tell the most evil tales), that they drop out of ordinary
humanity, as it were. Thus Ctrcilius indeed calls them a "iiatio,"
but he knows that they are recruited from the very dregs of the nations, and
consequently are no " people" in the sense of a "nation."
The Christian Octavius has to defend them against this charge of being a non-human
phenomenon, and Tertullian goes into still further details in his Apology and
in his address ail Nationes. In both of these writings the leading idea is the
refutati.ni of the charge brought against Christianity, of being something exceptional
and utterly inhuman. " Alia ttos opinor, natura, Cyropennm [Cynopae ?]
alit Sciapodes," we read in Apol., viii., " alii ordines dentiuin,
alii ad incestani libidinem nervi ? .... hotno est mini et Christianus et gllod
et tu" (" We are of a different nature, I suppose ! Are we Cyropennw
or Sciapodes ? Have we different teeth, different organs for incestuous lust?
. . Nay, a Christian too is a man, he is whatever you are." In Apol., xvi.,
Tertullian is obliged to refute wicked lies told about Christians which, if
true, would make Christians out to be quite

\7/ "A people who skulk and shun the light of day, silent in public but
talkative in holes and corners. They despise the temples as dead-houses, they
scorn the gods, they mock sacred things . . . . they recognize each other by
means of secret tokens and marks, and love each other almost before they are
acquainted. Why have they no altars, no temples, no recognized images .... unless
what they worship and conceal deserves punishment or is something to be ashamed
of? Moreover, whence is he, who is he, where is he, that one God, solitary and
forsaken, whom no free people, no realm, not even a Roman superstition, has
ever known? The lonely and wretched race of the Jews worshipped one God by themselves,
but they (lid it openly, with temples, altars, victims, and ceremonies, and
he has so little strength and power that he and all his nation are in bondage
to the deities of Rome ! But the Christians ! What marvels, what monsters, do
they feign ! "

[[270]] an exceptional class of human beings. Whereas, in reality, `~ Christiani
honjines suet vobiscuin degentes, eiusdenn victus, liahetus, instructus, eiusdein
ad vitani necessitates. iieque enim Bi achiiianae ant Indoruni gymnosophistae
sumus, silvicolae et exules vitae .. . . si caereinonias tuns non frequento,
attamesi et ills die lto-nw sum" (A pal. xlii.: "Christian men live
beside you, share your food, your dress, your customs, the same necessities
of life as you do. For we are neither Brahniins isor Indian gyinnosophists,
inhabiting the woods, and exiles from existence. If I do not attend your religious
ceremonies, none the less am I a human being on the sacred day"). "Cum
coneutitur iniperitim, concusses etiant ceteris mentbris emus utique et nos,
Beet extrauei a turbis aestiniermuro,i in aliquo loco casus invenimur"
(Apol., xxxi.: " When the state is disturbed and all its other nic:mbers
aflected by the disturbance, surely we also are to be found in some spot or
another, although we ar e opposed to live aloof ,from crowds." It is evident
also from the nicknames and abusive epithets hurled at them, that Christians
attracted people's attention as something entirely strange (cp., e.g., Apol.
1.).

In his two books ad Nations, no less than in the Apoloj, all these arguments
also find contemporary expression. Only in the former one further consideration
supervenes, which deserves

\8/ Hence the request made to Christians is quite intelligible : " Begone
iron a wOrld to which you do not belong, and trouble us not." Cp. the passage
already cited from Justin's ApOl., II. iv., where Christians are told by their
opponents, ,ra'pT€s ~aurovs /opmioavres rO t soOam ff&s lrap& ~~v
Orv ical (Jm1V 1rp~y/aru si) ~~p~xerr. Tertullian relates (ad Scep, v.) how
Arrius Antoninus, the proconsul of Asia, called cut to the Christians who crowded
voluntarily to his tribunal in a time of persecution, " You miserable wretches
; if you want to die, you have precipices and ropes." Celsus (in Orig.,
c. (els., VIII. lv.) writes : "If Christians decline to render due honour
to (lie gods or to respect those appointed to take charge of the religious services,
let them not grow up to manhood or marry wives or have children or take any
part in the affairs of this life, but rather be off with all speech, leaving
no posterity behind them, that such a race may become utterly extinct on earth."
Hatred of the enipire and emperor, and uselessness from the economic stam mdpoint
-- these were standing charges against Christians, charges which the apologists
(especially Tertullian) were at great pains to controvert. Celsus tries to show
Christians that they were really trying to cut off the branch on which they
sat (VIII. lxviii.): "Were all to act as you do, the emperor would soon
be left solitary and forlorn, and affairs world presently fall into the hands
of the wildest and most lawless barbarians. Then it would be all over with the
glory of

[[271]] special attention, namely, the assertion of Tertullian that Christians
were called "genus tertiuin" (the Third race) by their opponents.
The relevant passages are as follows :

your worship and the true wisdom among men" As the Christians were almost
alone among religionists in being liable to this charge of enmity to the empire,
they were held responsible by the populace, as everybody knows, for any great
calamities that occurred. The passages in Tertullian bearing on this point are
quite familiar ; but one should also compare the parallel statements in Origin
(in Matt. Co,nment Ser., xxxix.). Henceforth Christians appear a special group
by themselves. Maximinus Dazes, in his rescript to Sabinus (Lus., IIL., ix.
y), speaks of the tOros Tw Xpmo-rmcom'P (the nation of the Christians), and
the edict of Galerius reluctantly admits that Christians succeeded in combining
the various nations into a relative unity by nseans of their conunandments (Ltis.,
II. If., viii.
17. 7) : ~ooavr~~ aIroi's ir~eos*t(a 7rap€O, CEm gal Psia gar )d71' oy
cis z tlrrcrOa, ~ojs i',Tb 7(55 ,i Xam ,Ca7a~E XO0 TmP . . . . &X/~ sara
,4p e,'rrwv srpdO€mv ical iis tgaaTss ~$oiiAero, SIras ~aurOts Sal vd~o~s
sromflaam Sal TOOT 001 7rap4JuA~rTEms Sal
is iia~~poms ~md4opa ,rxsOsj ouvysmv (" Such arrogance had seized theism
and such
senselessness had mastered them, that instead of following the institutions
of their ancestors .. . . they framed laws for themselves according to their
own purpose, as each desired, and observed these laws, and thus held various
gatherings in various places ").

[[272]] saltem AEgyptu, et ipsi, cluod sciam, l,>rivatae curiosacque reiigioiiis
? hOPIo Si tam nwnstruosi, (Jul tertii loci, quales /,abendi, qui hrinno et
secundo antecedent?" (" We are indeed called the third race of men
! Are we monsters, Cyropenmiie, or Sciopades, or some Antipodeans from the underworld?
If these have any meaning for you, pray explain the first and second of the
races, that we may thus learn the ` third.' Psamrneticlius thought lie had ingeniously
lilt upon primeval man. He removed, it is said, some newly born infants from
all human intercourse amid entrusted their upbringing to a nurse whom lie had
deprived of her tongue, in order that being exiled entirely from the sound of
the human voice, they might form their words without hearing it, and derive
them from their own imature, thus indicating what was the first nation whose
language was originally dictated by nature. The first word they uttered was
` beccos,' the Phr)rgian word for bread. The Phrygians, then, are held to be
the first race If, then, the Phrygians are the first race, still it does not
follow that the Christians are the third. For how many other races successively
came after the Phrygians? But take heed lest those whom you call the third race
take first place, since there is no nation which is not Christian. Whatever
nation, therefore, is the first, is nevertheless Christian now. It is senseless
absurdity for you to call us the latest of nations and then to dub us the Third.
But, you say, it is on the score of religion and not of nationalitJ that we
are considered to be third ; it is the Romans first, themz the Jews, and q fter
that the Christians. What about the Greeks then ? Or supposing that they are
reckoned among the various Roman religions (since it was from Greece that Rome
borrowed even her deities), where do the Egyptianis at any rate conic in, since
they possess a religion which, so far as I know, is all their own, and full
of secrecy ? Resides, if those who occupy the third rank are such monsters,
what must we think of those who precede them in the first and second?").

Further, in ail Nat., I. xx. (after showing that the charges brought against
Christians recoil upon their adversaries the heathen), Tertuilian proceeds :
" Ilabelis et vos tertium genus etsi non de tertio r-itu, attameim de .tertio
sexu. Illud aptius de [[273]] viro et fewina viris et £eminis iunctunm
" (" You too have your third race' [i.e., of eunuchs], though it is
not in the way of a third religion, but of a third sex. Made up of male and
female in conjunction, it is better suited to pander to men and women ! ")

Add also a passage fromn the treatise Scompiace (x.: a word to heretics who
shunned . martyrdom) : " Illic coustitues et synagogas Judaeorum fortes
persecutiouunm, aped quas apostoli flagella perpessi suet, et populos nationum
cu11r suo quideni circo, ubi facile couclaniant : ` Usque quo genus tertium
?'" (" Will you set up there [i.e., in heaven] also synagogues of
the Jewswhich are fountains of persecution -- before which the apostles suffered
scourging, and heathen crowds with their circus, forsooth, where all are ready
to shout, `How long are we to endure this third race ? "').

From these passages we infer :

i. That "the third race" (genus tertium) as a designation of Christians
on the lips of the heathen was perfectly comuioll in Carthage about the year
200. Even in the circus people cried, " Usdue quo gents tertium ?"

ii. That this designation referred exclusively to the Christian method of conceiving
and worshipping God. The Greeks, Romans, and all other nations passed for the
first race (genus primunn), in so far as they mutually recognized each, other's
gods or honoured foreign gods as well as their own, and had sacrifices amid
images. The Jews (with their national God, their exclusiveness, and a worship
which lacked images but included sacrifice) i constituted the second race (genus
alterum). The Christians, again (with.their spiritual God, their lack of images
and sacrifices, amid tine contempt for the gods-eontemnere deoswhich they shared
with the Jews "), formed the Third race (genus tertiuin).

iii. When Temtullian talks as if the whole system of classifica

\9/ Cp. ad Nat., I. viii.
\10/ Cp. what is roundly asserted in ad Nat., I. viii.: "It is on the score
of religion and not of nationality that we are considered to be third ; it is
the Romans first, then the Jews, and after that the Christians." Also,
I. xx.: "Tertium genus [dicimur] de rite" (" We are roalled a
third race on the ground of religion") It seems to me utterly impossible
to suppose that Terlullian might have been mistaken in this interpretation of
the title in question.

[[274]] tion could denote the chronological series of the nations, it is merely
a bit of controversial dialectic. Nor has the designation of a the Third race"
(genus tertium) anythitig whatever to d9 either with the virginity of Christians,
or, on the other hand, with the sexual debaucheries set down to their credit.'

All these results 2 were of vital importance to the impression made by Christianity
(and Judaism 3) upon the pagan world. As early as the opening of the second
century Christians designate their religion as "the third method"
of religion (cp. the

\11/ Passages may indeed be pointed out in which either virginity (or unsexual
character) or unnatural lust is conceived as "genus tertium" (a third
race), or as a race (genus) in general (Tertull., de Virg. Vel., vii.: "Si
caput n ulieris vir est, ubique et virginis, de qua fit nsulier illa quae nupsit,
nat si Virgo tertium deuus est nionstrosuni aliquod sui capitis." ''If
the man is the head of the woman, he is also the head of the virgin, for out
of a virgin comes the woman who marries ; unless she is some monstrosity with
a head of its own, a third race"). Cp. op cit., v., where the female sex
is "genus secundi honsinis" ; pseudo-Cypr., de Pudic., vii., "V
rginitas neutrius est sexes"; and Clem. Alex., l'aedag., II. x. 85, oH
dap ai~oZa f i& it ~awa appwos Sal O5 AEos, saOl s IiTE(A,14aef TwEs, ~p~a~poSi-ws
r paroAovvtes hat Tpirflv Tatirflv sEra[v Oij cfas Sal &ppvoe avpd.yvvov
KawoTo/SoUv7€s ~Ga.w [a similar sexual analogy]. Cp., on the other hand,
op. cii., I. iv, ix, where there is a third condition common to both sexes,
viz., that of being human beings and also children ; also Lamnpridius, Alex.
Sever., xxiii.: " Idemu tertiumn genus hominum eunuchos dicebat" ("
He said eunuchs were a third race of mankind "). Obviously, however, such
passages are irrelevant to the point now under discussion.

\12/ It is remarkable that Tertullian is only aware of the title " tertiuns
genus" as a pagan description of Christians, and not as one also applied
by Christians t themselves. But despite his silence on the fact that Christians
also designated their religion as "the third kind" of religion, we
must nevertheless assume that the tents rose as spontaneously to the lips of
Christians as of their opponents, since it is unlikely, though not impossible,
that the latter borrowed it from Christian literature. (Consequently Fronto,
in his lost treatise against the Christians, must have made polemical use of
the title " genus tertiunn " which he found in Christian writings,
and by this means the term passed out into wider currency ansong the heathen.
Yet in Minucins Felix it does not occur.) To recall the chronological succession
of its occurrences once again : at the opening of the second century one Christian
writer (the author of the Preaching of Peter) calls the Christian religion "the
third kind" of religion ; in the year 197, Tertullian declares, "
Tertium genus dicimur" (" LVc are called the third race ") ;
while in 242-243 A.0. a Roman or African Christian (pseudo-Cyprian) writes,
"Tertium genus szonus" (" f7Ve are the third race ").

\13/ I add, Judaism -- for hitherto in our discussion we could not determine with
absolute certainty whether anyformula was current which distinguished the Jews
from all other peoples with regard to their conception and worship of God. Now
it is perfectly plain. The Jews ranked in this connection as an independent
magnitude, a ''genus alterum."

[[275]] evidence above furnished by the Preaching of I'eteio), and frankly
declare, about the year 240 A.D., "We are the third race of mankind"
(cp. the evidence of the treatise de Paccha Cnmputus).' Which proves that the
pagans did borrow this conception, and that (even previously to 200 A.D.) 2
they described the Jews as the second and the Christians as the third race of
then. This they did for the same reason as the Christians, on account of the
nature of the religion in question.

It is indeed amazing ! One had certainly too idea that in the consciousness
of the Greeks and Roinaiss the Jews stood out in such bold relief front the
other nations, and the Christians from both, or that they represented themselves
as independent
genera," and were so described in an explicit formula. Neither Jews nor
Christians could look for any ample recognition,3 little as the demarcatioss
was intended as a recogtiitioii at all.

The polemical treatises against Christians prove that the triple formula "Romnaiss,
etc., Jews, and Christians" was really never absent frost the minds of
their opponents. So fino as we are

\14/ It is now clear that we were right in conjecturing above that the Romans
were to pseudo-Cyprian the first race, and the Jews the second, as opposed to
the Third race.

\15/ How long before we do not know. By the end of the second century, at any
rate, the title was quite common. It is therefore hardly possible to argue against
the authenticity of Hadrian's epistle to Servianus (see above) on the ground
that it contains this triple division : " 1 hunc [nunsmumn] Christ a,tz,
hunc Judaei, hone onuses venerantur et genies" (" This pelf is revered
by the Christians, the Jews, and the nations"). But the description of
Romans, Greeks, etc., as "genies" is certainly very suspicious; it
betrays, unless I mn mistaken, the pen of a Christian writer.

\16/ Thanks to Varro, who had a genius for classification, people had been
aceustonsed among literary circles, in the first instance, to grade the gods
and religions as well. Perhaps it was under the influence of his writings (amt
even 'rertulhian makes great play with themss in his treatise ad !Vaiianes)
that the distinction of Jews and Christians as "the second and third ways"
obtained primarily among the learned, and thence made its way gradually into
the minds of the common people. It is utterly improbable that this new classification
was influenced by the entirely different distinction current among the Egyptians
(see above), of the three ywsj (Egyptians, Greeks, and Jews). Once it was devised,
the former conception must have gone on working with a logic of its own, setting
Judaism and Christianity in a light which was certainly not intended at the
outset. It developed the conception of three circles, of three possible religions
! Strammgely enough, Tertullian never mentions the''genus tertiunn" in
his Atology, though it was contemporaneous with the ad Nationes. Was the fact
not of sufficient importance to 1dm in encountering a Roman governor?

[[276]]

acquainted with these treatises, they one and all adopt this scheme of thought
: the Jews originally parted conipany with all other nations, and after leaving
the Egyptians, they formed an ill-favoured species by themselves, whilst it
is from these very' Jews that the Christians have now broken off, retaining
all the worst features of Judaism and adding loathsome and repulsive elemeflts
of their own. Such was the line taken by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian in their
anti-Christian writings. Celsus speaks of the ywoc of the Jews, and opposes
both yv"i in the sharpest m~~an~~er to all other nations, in order to show
that when Christians, as renegade Jews, distinguish themselves from this y€roc--a
y€roc which is, at least, a people-they do so to their own loss. He characterizes
Christians (VIII. ii.) as L7roTctXiOpTec
c
€OUTotJs Kat a7ropp?yVUVTec (ZTO TWv Xot7r w (xvOpw7rwv (" people
who separate themselves and break away front the rest of mankind "). For
all that, everything in Christianity is simply plagiarized from a plagiarism,
or copied from a copy. Christians per se have no new teaching (edO;jaa, I. iv.
; ep. II. v. and IV. xiv.). That they have any teaching at all to present, is
simply clue to the fact that they have kept back the worst thing of all, viz.,
their GTOOIcz few 7rp~c TO KOLVOV (" their revolt against the conmnmoim
weal ").' Porphyry -- who, I imagine, is the antiChristian controversialist
before the mind of Eusebius 2 -- in his Preparaio, i. 2, begins by treating Chiistians
as a sheer impossilrility, inasmuch as they will not and do not belong to the
Greeks or to the barbarians. Then he goes on to say : KUI
ULT() T( aapa Iov&uotc TtfLOV/J.€Vp Deep KUTU Ta ,rap' UUTO1'
rpoavcn v4et,ua, ,cawi)v ~~ Twa ,cu ~pm7,w7v avo&av ~uv~oic (TUPTEMCVI L1TE
TU EXXii' ,LLJjT€ TU 'I0V&/tWV /)uX(TTou~ap
(" Nor do they adhere to the rites of the God worshipped by the Jews according
to their customs, but fashion some new and solitary vagary for themselves of
which there is no trace in Ilellenismn or Judaism "). So that he also gives
the triple classification. Finally, Julian (Neumann, p. 164) likewise

\17/ The ~~~~o~ ~w~s wj Cels??s mentions rather obscurely in V. lxi. has nothing
to do with the third race which is our present topic. It refers to distinctions
within Christianity itself.

[[277]] follows the division of "EXXgve5, 'Iousulo~, and l'a7uXaios. The
Gahileans are neither Greeks nor Jews ; they have come front the Jews, but have
separated from them and struck out a path of their own. "They have repudiated
every noble amid significant idea current among us Greeks, and among the Ilebrews
who are descended from Moses ; yet they have lifted from both sources everything
that adhered to these imations like arm ill-ornened demon, takimmg their godlessness
from the levity of the Jews, and their careless and lax way of living from our
own thoughtlessness and vulgarity."

Plainly, then, Greek and Jews and Christians were distinguished throughout
upon the ground of religion, although the explicit formula of "the third
race" occurs only in the West. After the middle of the third century, both
empire and emperor learnt to recognize and dread the third race of worshippers
as a" nation," as well as a race. They were a state within the state.
`l'he most instructive piece of evidence in this connection is the account of
Decius given by Cyprian (Eli. lv. 9) : " Multo patientius et tolerabilius
audivit levari adversus se aemulum principeul quani constitui Romae dei sacerdotem"
(" He would hear of a rival prince being set up against himself with far
mole patience and equaninmity than of a priest of God being appointed at Route").
The terrible edict issued by this emperor for the persecution of
Christians is in the first instance the practical answer given by
the state to the claims of the "New People" and to the political
view advocated by Melito and Origen. The inner energy of the
new religion cones out in its self-chosen title of "the New
People" or "the Third race" just as plainly as in the testimony
extorted from its opponents, that in Christianity a new ;en s
of religion had actually emerged side by side with the religions
of the nations and of Judaism. It does not afford much direct
evidence upoim the outward spread and strength of Christianity,
for the formmmer estimate emerged, asserted itself, and was recog
nized at an early period, when Christians were still, in point of
numbers, a comparatively small society.' But it must have been

\19/ They could not have been utterly insignificant, however ; otherwise this
estimate would be incredible. In point of numbers they must have already rivalled
the Jews at any rate.

[[ 278]] of the highest importance for the propaganda of the Christian religion,
to be so distinctly di1freiitiated from all other religions and to have so lofty
a consciousness of its own position put before the world.1 Naturally this had
a repelling influence as well on certain circles. Still it was a token of power,
and power never fails to succeed.

\20/ Judaism already owed no small amount of her propaganda to her apologetic
and, within her apologetic, to the valuation of herself which it developed.
Cp. Schhrer, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, 111.0), pp. io f. [Eng. traps., II. 249
L].

[[279]]

CHAPTER VIII
THE RELIGION OF A BOOK AND A HIS'T'ORICAL REALI/.ATJON

CIIILI5T'IAN1'T'Y, unlike Islam, never was and never became the religion of
a book in the strict sense of the term (not until a much later period, that
of rigid Calvinism, did the consequences of its presentation as the religion
of a book become really dangerous, and even then the rule of faith remained
at the helm). Still, the book of Christianity -- i.e., in the first instance, the
Old Testament -- did exert an influence which brought it to the verge of becoming
the religion of a book. Paul, of course, when we read him aright, was opposed
to this development, and wide circles throughout Christendom -- both the gnostics
and the Marcionites -- even went the length of entirely repudiating the Old Testament
or, of ascribing it to another god altogether, though he too was righteous and
dependent on the most high God.1 But in the cathjlic church this gnostic criticism
was indignantly rejected, whilst the complicated position adopted by the apostle
Paul towards the book was not understood at all. The Old '1estanient, interpreted
allegorically, continued to be the sacred book for these Christians, as it was
for the Jews, from whom they aimed to wrest it.

'I'his attitude to the Old '1'estalnent is quite intelligible. What other religious
society could produce a book like it ? 2 I-low overpowering and lasting must
have been the impression made by it on Greeks, educated and uneducated alike,
once they

\1/ Cp., for example, the letter bf Ptolemaeus to Flora, with my study of it
in the Silzungsberidhle d. K Pr. Akad, d. Wiss., May rg, 1902.

\2/ It had this double advantage, that it was accessible in Greek, and also
that the Hebrew original was familiar. On the Septuagint, see the studies by
Nestle and Deissmann, besides the epistle of Aristeas (ed. Wendland, 1900).